get_app_store_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only 'get' operation and discloses the data scope (ratings, reviews, live versions), but it does not mention whether this fetches live external data, potential failure modes, or other side effects. This is acceptable but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that starts with the action and resource and immediately lists the key result fields. Every word contributes to the meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is almost fully sufficient. It lids what the tool returns and which platforms it covers. A slightly more explicit statement about what 'status' means might improve it, but the main use case is covered adequately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero params, so the parameter semantics are inherently not an issue. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific verb 'Get' and the resource: iOS App Store and Android Play Store status, with concrete outputs like ratings, reviews, and current live versions. This differentiates the tool from siblings such as get_app_status or get_all_apps_status, which are broader or focused on general app health.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for checking store-specific listing data rather than general app or infrastructure status. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like get_app_status or get_app_versions, and there are many status-related sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.